i hate you if you're not getting this reference

Hetalia Countries As Random Spongebob Quotes pt. 2
  • N.Italy: MY LEG!
  • Germany:
  • Japan: Well, it’s no secret that the best thing about a secret is secretly telling someone your secret, thereby, secretly adding another secret to their secret collection of secret, secretly
  • America: You don’t need a license to drive a sandwich.
  • France: I love you.
  • China: Well at least I still have my personality...
  • Russia: Do instruments of torture count?
  • Sweden: FINLAND.
  • Denmark: East? I thought you said Weast!
  • Norway: I hate all of you.
  • Finland: That’s his.....eager face. (referring to Sweden)
  • Iceland: I made it with my tears.
  • Greece: She's a purebred.
  • Turkey: How do you spell you're not my friend?
  • Canada: The door is locked...and the only way to get out is through.....THE PERFUME DEPARTMENT....
  • Australia: It's not just a boulder...IT'S A ROCK!
  • Austria: Don’t you have to be stupid somewhere else?
  • Prussia: Not until 4:00
  • Hungary: If I were to die right now of some sort of fiery explosion due to carelessness of a friend, well that would just be okay.
  • Estonia: Now that we’re men, we have facial hair!
  • Lithuania: Now that we’re men, we change our underwear!
  • Latvia: Hi. I'm very ugly

anonymous asked:

Dunno where you live, but I'm from the US, where the neo-nazis I assume you're referring to tend to spring up. Thing is, one of our most vital rights is the right to free speech, and whether we like it or not, that includes their right to spew hate. It is a very tenuous argument to assert that physical attacks are less violent than hateful words. Besides, couldn't that ideal of "striking down evil" be used by them to justify violence against their critics? Bit risky there, mate.

I keep getting asked this kind of thing, but I’ll re-iterate.

I’m from the UK, and I understand the concept of freedom of speech. Interestingly, those that espouse that right are often doing so to protect their racism, their extreme beliefs, their general disgusting ideology, but I digress.

Firstly, we should address that all “Freedom of Speech” means, is that the government cannot persecute you for your beliefs. And on a socio-political level, that’s important. The government should not have the ability to persecute you for simply believing something.
But that does not mean that, socially, it makes you exempt from being (rightly) persecuted. This is what you might call ‘Social Justice’. Just because something is not illegal, does not make it right. You may see this in the work-place - sure, being a Neo-Nazi isn’t illegal, but you can be fired for voicing your racist beliefs due to work-place culture and laws meaning you cannot discriminate. People often forget that while ‘Freedom of Speech’ exists to protect you from government, it is not a get-out-of-jail card for work and society.

Second, no-one says that physical acts are less violent than words. What is worth noting is that words too often, in cases of hatred, become actions. Everyone that defends Neo-Nazi’s right to speak, often treats them as though they are innocent victims. They are not. They WANT to be violent. They WANT to exterminate others. In large groups, they can BE violent. If they have a say in society or politics, they can (and historically have) make themselves except from repercussions of this. A good example in the US is the KKK, who for so long were entrenched in the elite of the US, and could get away with killing racial minorities. This is a lot harder now, but once was a reality. They are not so divorced from the Neo-Nazi’s. Now imagine if the Civil Rights had not come about, and it was possible for a Neo-Nazi group to gain political force, and organize lynchings, without any true repercussion.
This is why it’s vital to strike out against hate groups, even those that cite themselves as being non-violent. They are a small group, but this is the only thing keeping them from being a violent group, due to their extreme ideologies. If a minority group exists that seeks the death or conversion of all other groups around it, it must be rehabilitated or removed. You do not let it grow. So says the Japanese saying: “The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down.”

Thirdly, you are not wrong to suggest that such a phrase can be used in reverse. But this corrupts intention. Even though a phrase might be said equally by another group, it does not hold the same truth. This is the difference between saying “We must strike down their evil (which is seeking the ultimate death of blacks, muslims, jews, etc)”, and them saying it to mean “We must strike down their evil (by exterminating blacks, muslims, jews, etc)”. The same phrase holds different meanings, and one means to act with violence to prevent large-scale violence and fear, while the other promotes violence and fear to all that do not bow to it. The latter is clearly evil, and were they a political body, we would see them as evil and genocidal.
Thus, you cannot simply ignore those who speak this way. They must be removed somehow.

Fourthly, I talk a lot about the “correct use of violence” and Just War theory. What is often overlooked when I speak of these things is that Just War means seeking to avoid conflict before drawing swords to sweep the enemy away.
With Neo-Nazi groups, I do remain hopeful that they (and indeed anyone) can be reformed and made to see the wickedness of their hatred and ignorance. But I do not think that arguments on the internet achieve this for a second. What changes it is exposure to the things they hated.
Real talk: Knight used to be very anti-Islam. Not anti-Muslims, but anti-Islam. Knight saw it for a long time as a death cult. Knight made friends that are Pakistani and Muslim, both Sunni and Shia. Knight got a copy of the Quran and read it, with understanding from his friends. Knight is aware of the historical background behind Islamic extremism, and modern Muslims, and how they differ. Knight is no longer anti-Islam, though he is very anti-Salafist/Wahhabist.
It is possible to change one’s beliefs, but it takes time and exposure. But not everyone is willing to change, and not everyone will listen.

When someone speaks and aims to intimidate or looks to harm or bully others, it is the vilest of cowardice not to stand up to those people and to permit them to behave as they do. If a Neo-Nazi, for example, is shouting at a Jewish family that they should be gassed, it is better to bring their focus to yourself and step in. If you can, confront them however is needed. If they will not listen (and they rarely do if they are spewing their hatred, and feelings are high), then I would rather bring them the threat of violence.
Too often, the people that say others are sub-human, do not themselves start violence, because they want to hide behind ‘Freedom of Speech’. They want the people they persecute to be seen as violent, to justify their beliefs. They want someone else to start, so they can be violent in return, and play the victim.
I have no qualms with breaking such people of this illusion of victimhood, if they intimidate others with threats of death. If they seek violence, then they may receive it, if they will not step down. There is always a point where words are of little use, and it becomes RIGHT even if not LAWFUL to strike back.
This is where one must sometimes choose to be either GOOD or LAWFUL. Do you seek only peace when someone will not take the offer, or strike out when you know it shall incriminate you?

For a knight, the choice is the latter. For a knight is a figure of war and violence, as much as they are of law and justice. Thus when all else has failed, before words become the actions of a majority, when reason and peace does not exist, might we strike out.
This is not an easy thing to do, to determine when violence is ever needed. When is Just War needed? When is it impermissible?
Even though it may be hard, we must be prepared to distinguish. We must in our heart of hearts, be able to draw the line in the sand, and if that line is crossed, strike down another without pause. It should not be an easy line to cross, but it must exist.

anonymous asked:

I hate how some of the fandom refers to Lance as Latino Lance. Like "Omg I made this Latino Lance edit." Lmfao you want assortment and then you label it??? ITS JUST LANCE. NOT LATINO LANCE. Lmfaoooo he's already confirmed half latino, what now you're afraid to get your Lance's mixed up? First you praise the !!Diversity!! Then you HAVE to say LATINO Lance and not JUST LANCE?? Lmmfaoooooooooooo, seeing that shit especially being a Latina HAHAHAH MY GOD SHITS FUNNY AF.

Antis love to rave about how they’re so multicultural etc etc and then will purposely sensationalise Lance’s ethnicity like that’s so fucking racist lmao

That Time Panda Gave Nogla a Heart Attack
  • Nogla: Ok, ok reverse it! Reverse it, reverse it! Ok, ok. Stop! You fuck!
  • Panda: You told me to reverse it!
  • Nogla: Change it! Reverse it again!
  • Panda: That's regular!
  • Nogla: Ok, ok no no no! Put it through, put it through! Now put it back! I'm gonna get- *dies a painful death* You fuck!
  • *Panda cackles loudly*
  • Nogla: You're a fucking giant... stupid... fucking... bitch!
  • Panda: You have me so confused when you say, "Reverse it; now reverse it back." *through heavy laughter* Which one is it? Which one do you want?!
  • *scene skip*
  • Panda: Oh shit, that was funny.
  • Nogla: I fucking hate you.

Sort of setting up a new queue while I’m sketching, because I need to get off tumblr unless I’ve got messages or need to look through art references I stored here for four years, I’ll be importing my blogs over to our site anyhow because I’m going to delete a lot of stuff, won’t be leaving tumblr or erasing my blog here though because everyone I follow provides so much inspiration


“What do you mean, Cas? Why don’t you get your little angel friends to help?”

kangals  asked:

I would sincerely hope you're not supporting the breeding of designer dogs like the "bernedoodle" you just posted? At the least you could refer to them as a Bernese x Poodle cross or add a disclaimer to not buy into the designer dog fad. I'd hate to think of people getting inspired to seek out these poorly-bred dogs due to a blog post here.



art piety especially among college students will always be complicit in socialized classism please get out if you’re gonna go off about ending capitalism on your blog then turn around and not realize the structural framework of your insulated scene are only in place because you can afford it like i have so little tolerance for that bullshit 

credentialed “educated” people look for any excuse to mock us for having interests pursued outside of a university or not being up to caliber with their frame of reference for knowledge it’s so zzzzz

anonymous asked:

I don't think that you should have such a hateful tone towards taking medication for depression. People shouldn't to get the feeling that it means that you're "giving up". As someone who has had depression and anxiety for years, nothing has helped me more than my anxiety medication. At first I was embarrassed that I was "going down that route", but honestly, if I was physically sick I would take medicine with no embarrassment, so why is it so wrong to take medicine for my mind? Just a thought <3

Hateful tone? What are you referring too? Here’s what I said..

‘I don’t take any medication because I’d prefer not to go down that route.’

There are different ways to treat depression, and I personally opted for another route which worked for me better. And yes, if I don’t have to take medication and there are alternatives then of course I will explore those. Like i’ve said in the past, I suffer from it on a minor scale so I can deal with it through other means. Nobody is hating on medication here, I have many friends that deal with it and are treated with medication and swear by how good it is. I don’t disagree. Different things work for different people.

anonymous asked:

Not to take the side of the rude anons or anything, but for the past week or two, you’ve been cluttering up everyone’s newsfeed with the more-than-occasional anon-hate replies, and even independent posts talking about them. I follow your blog for fashion stuffs, etc, and it’s really getting annoying that you keep giving those people the time of day. You're always going to get hate mail, but you don't HAVE to acknowledge it. In fact, that's probably the reason they keep coming back- you respond.

Let me just say this - if the way that I choose to run MY blog somehow does not live up to YOUR needs - please, feel free to click that unfollow button.
I do not run my blog for you.  I am not getting paid for this.  If it bugs you so much that I have made one (yes, count that, one) individual post referring to how health trolls are annoying, then feel free to no longer have me on your dash.  It is incredibly silly and presumptuous of you to just assume that I’m ‘cluttering up everyone’s dash’ with who I choose to respond to.  What’s even sillier though, is that you are complaining when the vast majority of things I have been posting are not at all negative.  If you actually scroll through my blog right now, you’ll see just how much you are exaggerating and being obnoxiously rude.

This is a personal blog.  You don’t get to choose who I respond to or how I run it.  Instead of realizing that this is MY space and letting me run it how I see fit, you are actively choosing to send me something negative because it’s not living up to your expectations.  I don’t think you get to talk about what’s annoying when you’re sending this kind of shit.

Also, for your information, I tend to ignore/block 80% of the hatemail that I do receive (which is what I will be doing to you if you decide to message me again).  If you actually cared about what I had to say or my personal posts, outside of just being a source of fashion for you and not an actual person, you would know that when I do respond to these kind of messages..it’s always for a specific reasoning.  

Honestly, I’m perfectly happy not having followers like you.  If you expect my blog to be foxes, sunshine, rainbows, and 100% of what you want to see all of the time - go find another blog that is specifically catering to you because this is not one of them.

anonymous asked:

When you're writing something and you really hate the way it's turning out, would you advise to keep writing and edit later or to fix it right away and possibly avoid having to do massive rewrites later?

Some people work better if they’re able to fix something right away, but I would advice most people to try to finish what they’re doing first because  

  1. You’re going to have to rewrite it anyway
  2. Getting into the habit of stopping and going back can slow down your writing by a lot
  3. You might need to refer back to the original draft for whatever reason and if you edit it as you go along, what you originally wrote is now gone.

mollusk-king  asked:

Sorry, but you're a TERF. If someone says they hate Jews and want them exterminated, they're a nazi. Just because they don't identify as a nazi doesn't mean they aren't one. If you discriminate based on skin color, you're a racist. Whether or not you identify as a racist is irrelevant- you're a racist. You exclude transwomen from your radical feminism? You're a TERF. Get a grip.

The ask is referring to this post. I’ll copy it here: 

I am not a terf.

All terfs are terfs, but I am not one. I don’t care what your definition of the term is, or what you think the acronym stands for; I don’t identify as a terf, therefore I am not a terf.

So please stop calling me that.

Obviously, the post isn’t serious. It was inspired by the recent debate happening on this site regarding the definition of the word “woman”. If you replace “terf” in my original post with “man” or “woman” that is how genderists sometimes explain gender identity. 

It sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? What I find really telling is that the only people who felt the need to explain to me that I, in fact, AM a terf, regardless of my own self-identification, are genderists. However, if we say, “you have an X and Y chromosome, so all signs point to you being a man, regardless of how you identify” we are bigots and deserve to die. But apparently, it’s okay to tell me who I am and completely ignore my self-identification. If it doesn’t work with racism, homophobia, and indeed terfs, why is this argument expected to work with gender (and even sex)? 

Anyways, I couldn’t care less about being called a terf. If you need someone to insult and call names, feel free to come here. I can take it.